About your Search

20130801
20130831
STATION
CSPAN 5
CSPAN2 3
MSNBC 2
MSNBCW 2
LANGUAGE
English 15
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
, it makes it hard to defend a few weeks later why the nsa programs have expanded. when you want allies on our side saying it is important that they are by our size, and then you have the president saying that the war on terror is over. apart from whatever isolationist streak i have in congress, blaming america first crowd, one of the main reasons we have a hard time maintaining support for programs like the nsa is because the president has undercut us, and mainly in a schizophrenic way. he should be out there on national tv, instead of talking about phony scandals, talk about the phony speeches he has made about is monetarism and tell us why the nsa program is so important. we are up against a situation where the people who are considered republicans, conservatives, are depending the programs of a left-of-center president who refuses to defend the program itself. but the country comes first. basisa will use that as a for the program being so essential. privacy versus security. we face an enemy which is overseas and here in our own country. it is an enemy which is willing to carry out a
-- >> the philosophical objection to all the nsa programs is that you don't want the government. everyone knows that amazon has all of your information. so does, you know, your online grocer who takes your food order every week. this is about the federal government having too much information and too much control over their lives. >> like they don't have it already. >> as a stout nra member, i'm upset to know they may know what i'm doing, how i'm doing, what i'm doing with i many guns. >> where you keep them in your east hampton cottage. >> east hampton, it's ammo city out there. >> yes, i just heard from someone, a concerned viewer that when we say guns, we're not talking about your biceps. >> oh, there you go. >> okay. talking of surveillance. government programs. >> we want to see them today. you have three hours for you to reveal your guns. >> no, no, no. >> this is marketing. marketing is for the consumer's needs. obviously there's a consumer need out there to see the biceps. so we will, as marketers, as journalists. yes, that will happen at 8:00. >> it won't. i promise you, it really won'
shows and lon snowden, father of edward snowden, the n.s.a. leaker, was on some of the chat shows and he was responding to what the president said during his press conference the day before about his son. i know eric, you're close to this story. you've spoken to the father before. >>eric: i have. i've spoken to lon personally. he's very concerned, a concerned father. he's also a concerned american. he's worried about what's going on. listen to what he had to say. he was with his attorney on one of the talk shows. >> at this point what i would like is for this to be vetted in open court for the american people to have all the facts. what i've seen is much political theater. i was dis pointed in the president's press conference. i believe that's driven by his clear understanding that the american people are absolutely unhappy with what they've learned and that more is going to be forthcoming. we do have a perception problem and we have to deal with that. we need to let the american public know that this program is a program that protects them but does not violate their privacy. for an indi
it is fast and furious, whether it is benghazi, whether it is the n.s.a., you are never getting information. >>steve: some of the president's critics are saying the only reason we have heard about this particular terror threat at our embassies and diplomatic posts throughout the arab world is because in past administrations in the bush years, they never would have made such a big deal out of it. but right now the subtle message is, look, we were able to listen to this particular conversation between al-zawahiri and the guy who runs al qaeda in the arabian peninsula through the n.s.a. program so folks don't feel bad about the n.s.a. program. >> we'll wait and see what happens with this. if there is nothing that happens, we'll have to say you blew contacts, you blew sources and methods. was it to distract us from other issues. you know what makes me maddest of all? where's the media? when i was in the nixon administration, if the nixon administration had not turned over documents, you would have heard about it from every media source. they would have been screaming and crying. in this case th
which is the nsa who every three months is going to this fisa court which is a secret court which no one can appeal to. and they're getting warrants to get cell phone records basically every single american, okay? you have an fbi who believes that and has went to court to say that they do not, they don't need, basically they don't need a warrant to put a gps tracking device on your car. you've got an irs whose official position is that they don't need a warrant to check your e-mail. this, of course, is that same irs that has no compunction about using -- abusing their authority. they have targeted tea party groups and so far nobody has really paid a price for that. and so read the situation that i find, i think i'm and i might be the only person who feels it is about nothing is being done to rein in these government agencies. and so from my perspective it's like, well, the only privacy really have is what the government says that you have to. and i was really pumped when you voted against -- that was awesome, i was really happy about that. i was really disappointed that you voted against
was the nsa and their search of the american e-mail and the compiling of metadata about the phone calls of americans. collects relations have come to light recently that there were times when the line was crossed. that demonstrates that those mechanisms were in place and the court ruling that that program was unconstitutional in 2011 and setting it aside and ending it was another example of how the process works. we have to continue to focus on striking that balance. >> missile controversy seems to have done something that a lot of people were not thought possible. that is forging a common ground between the libertarians and the liberal side of the democratic party. you get a sense that this is going to be the kind of the finding issue going forward that may be, say, the iraq war was? >> i do not have a sense that this will be a defining issue in that way. as is particularly because unlike the iraq war, where president bush was in office and very affirmatively differed with the democratic base and with face of the entire country where most americans felt that with the wrong war at the w
the president close. is it nsa stuff, what is it? it has become more common since the late 1990s to talk about this. obviously because the country did it, went through it in '98 with president clinton. it's not, you know, impeachment is always a political tool. there's always some political element to it, obviously, because there is no definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. what is that? every generation, every congress, whoever wants to do it can redefine it. it's a kind of crazy armageddon. and i think that it's a sign of a certain derangement as we've talked about a lot on the part of any opponent of an incumbent president to go to this because you're trying to delegitimize the president who holds the office. it happened when conservatives did it with bush. it happened with conservatives and clinton that was strong push to delegitimize the president and a lot of people did not believe deserved to be president and that's what this talk is about now. it's the deepest, most significant kind of attack that you could make on a president and it will be interesting to see if it's coburn just
of tennessee. she's also chair of the judicial conference of the nsa's committee on the budget, and so is well and deeply first and funding issues faced by the court and can answer i believe many of the implicit questions raised in the opening statement from both myself and senator sessions. judge gibbons, please proceed. >> chairman coons, senator sessions, members of the subcommittee, i appear before you as chair of the judicial conference committee on the budget. the judiciary very much appreciates the invitation to discuss the financial crisis facing the courts. senator coons, i am pleased that judge is a known circuit are here today. i see judge ted mickey. there's the judge from your home state. the third circuit itself -- as rest of the judiciary but it's within the circuit coordination and efforts to address the current crisis has been stellar. i also would like to recognize judge john bates right here behind me, the new director of the administrative office of the court who comes after serving on the d.c. federal district court. the $350 million, 5% across the board sequestration cuts
questions about his canceled meeting with russian president putin as well as the debt ceiling and nsa surveillance. we will bring it to you live at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. next, former president george w. bush on immigration during a naturalization ceremony at the bush institute on july 10. following the ceremony, the institute hosted a series of panels looking at immigrant contributions to america. this is about two hours. >> wonderful. for theu, jim, introduction. thank you, ambassador. thank you immigrants who are joining us today and thank you to our audience here and watching us. this is being streamed on bushcenter.org. thank you. mentioned weador are here in texas. this is a relevant topic. it is relevant to american nationwide. especially to those of us in the lone star state caret it is an interesting comparison. growthject is the 4% project. we are trying to get u.s. gdp doubled rate it is now. in recent times, we have been growing 2.5% per year. we know we can do better. one way we know we can do better is that in the past we have grown a lot faster. over the past4% 60
the republican party. you see it manifest in various debates. you see it in the debate about n.s.a. insure veeps -- surveillance program. you see it with aid to egypt. there's no question what rand paul is leading the movement for a very different kind of republican foreign policy. i don't know who's going to prevail in that debate. we'll know when the republicans choose a nominee in 2016. host: go to john in minnesota on our republican line. caller: i was wondering why israel doesn't get involved? we pour all the money into israel. seem like this is more concerning them than us. they just sit back and don't do anything. just take our money. it's because of dick cheney and the neocons that we can't get coalition that the rest of the world don't trust us because of iraq. host: what is israel doing now? guest: israel is doing what they ought to be doing. most of the world would want them to do is stand on the sidelines and their producting themselves and preparing themselves in case syria decides it use chemical weapons against them. i don't know anybody including critics of the president, wa
at the fisa debate. a lot of people looked at other stories we wrote about fisa, and about nsa spying and that sort of thing. it put a human face, i think, on the otherwise inpenetrable government bureaucracy system going on. nobody ever really stands exactly -- don't understand what is going on when nsa decides to tap someone's phone. and it was a nice way to sort of show that to people. >> i agree with john when he mentioned that people seem to be more plugged in to politics now than they have ever been. there are part of the explosion of media outlet on capitol hill covering politics since 2006, 2007.ort what you see is that people are only going places that reenforce their already-held opinions. so it's important -- we all -- all of our organizations do really well, is to provide an independent viewpoint or independent look at what is going on in in washington that is simplified enough for the common person, the nonpolitical person to understand but nuanced enough that, you know, you're not boiling it down to something where they're not getting anything out of it. like, i was talk
every website every american goes to? must be the n.s.a. i attended a classified briefing, i can't go into anything there, but it appeared before the briefing very clear to me and i still feel this way, that when you blind yourself as to who the enemy is, as we have, purging all kinds of material from our f.b.i. training materials, state department, intelligence materials, as to who radical islamists really are and what they believe, you blind our law enforcement, our security people from the ability to see your enemy. we're not protected. when you have an open border where people are coming across at will and border patrolmen have told us three to four times faster than they ever have since we started talking about handing out legal status to anybody who happened to be here by a certain date, all this talk about amnesty, citizenship, all these other things, do they get benefits? not get benefits? all this talk has increased the number of people coming in by about three to five times. the border is not secure. when you don't control what kind of terrorists may be coming into your coun
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)